Musicals are expensive to run (weekly nuts) — Page 2

All the kudos to the O/P as compiling a post like that would take a very long time to put together.

If we look at Motown that hasn't announced it has recouped as yet, don't know why some pretty impressive figures.

The show has taken just over $82m in ticket sales in just over a year it has been playing, so lets be hypothetical and say the show cost a whacking $18m to put on, the same as Billy Elliot, if we deduct this off $82m, then the show has made $64m all of which it costs to run the show a week, it has been playing just over 65 weeks, which would be it has a mind blowing $1m a week operating costs and rising as the show hasn't recouped as yet.

So what could happen here:

The show has an astronomical weekly operating cost $1m a week

The figures the producers supply to the Broadway League are wrong.

The show has already recouped but hasn't announced, like Memphis and Rock of Ages did.

The problem with this is that unless you are intimately involved with every single aspect of the production, or know one of the Producers, these numbers will never be accurate. CapN already mentioned "variables" and that's exactly what we have here. "

Yes I do agree, as mentioned these are just estimations. However, I think they are close enough to at least have some value - e.g., the calculated N2N figure is pretty close to the N2N report in the NYTimes.

Thank you for mentioning a few of the variables though, I can definitely address some of your concerns.

"You do not take into account holiday weekends, shortened weekly performances, and other scheduling adjustments that would dramatically shift or alter the weekly nut at least several weeks out of an entire run or year"

I do actually take this into account. However, it is crudely and assumes that for example 4-performance weeks performances would entail half the weekly running cost and 1-performance weeks would be 1/8 the cost, and 9-performance weeks would be 9/8th the cost. I imagine in reality it’s not this simple. I also don’t know if it would have a massive effect. For example, if I pretend that N2N had 8 performances every week during the time it took them to recoup (they actually had 5 non-standard weeks with more or usually less performances than , I would calculate their nut to be 256k instead of 260k.

Since you do not have access to the royalties agreement, it's also difficult to offer a full picture on the weekly gross. For certain weeks, creatives and/or writers will waive royalties in exchange for a higher licensing or mechanical (or DPD) license percentage. For certain productions, there may also be significant royalties paid to a licensor or publisher, as is the case in "Jersey Boys" for example, which could impact the weekly nut. What makes this even more difficult is that there are silent investors on Broadway and, yes, they do exist. They do not attend the pressers or the awards shows. They, too, would have to be accounted for in the weekly nuts.

This means the weekly nut can change considerably week-to-week.

Thank you temms and Liza again I do agree that the nuts are going to change considerably week-to-week, so it may make it difficult to know precisely how much a show cost last week vs this week. However, I am careful to claim that these are the “average weekly nuts” across time.

Your example RE: amortization is an interesting one. For the purposes of this nuts, I am personally assuming that a producer only announces a show recoups when they have paid off every expense (including royalties etc.,). This is just an assumption I am just going to accept because we don’t have any other information and logically/the traditional use of the word “recoup” would suggest this is the case.



That GETLEMEN’S GUIDE couldn’t be more timely. The article suggests that in 33 weeks they did not returned a single dollar of their investment. If we assume that they have at least broken even, I would estimate their average weekly nut to be about 457k, about 56% weekly potential gross (I think this is a conservatively low estimate because if they had a 1 million reserve they might be using it). If you graph their profit/loss it is clear that the Tony awards probably saved this show.

---

Updated On: 6/16/14 at 06:07 PM

Interesting stuff here, with data! http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-ca-jersey-boys-musical-20140622-story.html

---

It does seem hard to play with these nuts, since we're just kind of grabbing randomly and blindly without knowing exactly how big they are or how they prefer to be manipulated.

"The show has already recouped but hasn't announced, like Memphis and Rock of Ages did."
You're right about Rock of Ages, but not Memphis. Memphis just barely recouped and they announced it.

http://variety.com/2012/legit/news/broadway-s-memphis-recoups-1118057222/#

"What would be the weekly nut for "Chicago"? I get the sense that the producers could be more generous with salaries."

Assuming they could, why would they?

qolbinau, I was thinking the same thing, that the nut must be very high for them to have taken so long to recoup. Thanks for sharing.

qolbinau - I've read that Matilda has a different financing structure from most shows and that the investors were being paid back at a lower-than-traditional rate. Basically, that the RSC were taking a larger portion of profits up front. Wouldn't that make for a slower recouping time without raising the weekly nut?

Yeah very odd that Matilda had to run 90 weeks at 87.67% of its gross before it paid back its investors. If the summary numbers at the bottom of the Broadway world gross sheets are correct that was with an average of 95.7% attendance. Expenses, which must include payments to the original production company in the UK and the crazy amount of advertising the show has done have to be huge. That concerns me because once the holidays are over and the new shows come in and it slumps back down to the 600k/700k range will it be able to survive?
Matilda Totals

---

Up In One, I think you're right. If we remember, Billy Elliot didn't actually run very long.

averagebwaynut, that's interesting. I guess I didn't know that things like rent fluctuated.

^ You're not taking royalties, box office percentage shares (if any), and landlord BO percentage shares (if any), into account so that number is most likely not accurate.

Interestingly enough, I was just looking at "Chorus Line: FAQs" (fascinating book) and learned its original weekly nut was $160,000. I took out of towners who'd never seen it, and recall the Shubert was often half full ore less. It was possible to keep going because it was so inexpensive. Worth noting, too: the show without a full house is a bizarre piece of theater, an indifferent audience can turn thrilling material into something that seems oddly self-indulgent. I remember the vibe in the semi-empty Shubert on a particular winter night: the stories being told seemed to disappear into the ether, without laughs or collective sense of identification. David Hare says every play takes place between the actors and the audience. For ACL, when that space wasn't occupied, the material just refused to come to life, at least until the finale. A sidebar perhaps, but related to shows lasting past their ability to sell well.

---

Liza, are you saying Fun Home's actual nut is higher or lower than 455?